What did the court decide?

The appeals court granted certiorari and quashed the trial court’s orders that compelled a post-judgment deposition, concluding the trial court lacked authority to order that discovery in the case in chief after final judgment.

Who is affected by this decision?

The petitioner, who faced a deposition after a final default judgment, benefits because the deposition order was vacated; the respondent cannot force that in-person deposition as ordered.

What happens next in the lower court?

The trial court’s February discovery and scheduling orders are nullified; if the respondent seeks post-judgment discovery it must rely on proper execution-related rules or other applicable exceptions.

Can the respondent still get discovery?

Possibly, but only if it fits within limited post-judgment exceptions (for execution or preservation) or the trial court properly invokes a rule authorizing post-judgment discovery; reopening the judgment to obtain pre-judgment discovery is not allowed.

Can this decision be appealed further?

This is an appellate decision granting certiorari by the district court; a motion for rehearing may be filed timely in the district court, and further review could be sought to the Florida Supreme Court in appropriate circumstances.

John Afriyie v. Louis Friend

Docket 3D2026-0348

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilGranted

Filed: Apr 29, 2026 · 2 days ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Granted
Docket: 3D2026-0348

Petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of trial court discovery orders entered after a final default judgment

Summary

The Third District Court of Appeal granted a writ of certiorari and quashed the trial court’s February 6 and February 19, 2026 discovery orders that compelled the petitioner to appear for an in-person deposition in Miami-Dade County after a final default judgment had been entered. The appellate court concluded that once a final judgment is entered, the trial court lacks authority to order depositions in the case in chief and may only permit post-judgment discovery limited to execution or certain narrow exceptions not present here. Because the discovery orders sought materials and testimony that should have been obtained before judgment, they were improper and subject to certiorari relief.

Issues Decided

Whether a trial court may compel a party against whom a final judgment was entered to appear for deposition in the case in chief after entry of judgment
Whether post-judgment discovery may be ordered to reopen or obtain matters that could have been discovered before judgment

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on precedent holding that after final judgment the trial court loses authority to order depositions in the case in chief and is limited to discovery aimed at execution or narrow preservation exceptions. The exceptions that allow post-judgment testimony or depositions (e.g., preservation or execution rules) did not apply here. Because the requested post-judgment discovery sought information that should have been obtained pre-judgment, allowing it would effectively permit a prohibited fishing expedition to reopen the judgment.

Authorities Cited

Berger v. Riverwind Parking, LLP836 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
Horne v. School Bd. of Miami-Dade Cty.901 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Llovet330 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)

Parties

Petitioner: John Afriyie
Respondent: Louis Friend
Attorney: Michael Friend
Judge: Daryl Evan Trawick

Key Dates

Final judgment entered: 2026-01-07
Notice of Appeal filed: 2026-02-06
Discovery order entered: 2026-02-06
Scheduling order (deposition) entered: 2026-02-19
Opinion filed: 2026-04-29

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider motion for rehearing
Either party may timely file a motion for rehearing in the Third District if they believe the court overlooked controlling law or facts; the opinion notes the decision is not final until rehearing time expires.
2
Assess proper post-judgment discovery options
If the respondent still needs information to execute the judgment, counsel should evaluate whether the materials can be obtained under Florida rules governing discovery in aid of execution or preservation and, if so, propose narrowly tailored requests.
3
Coordinate jurisdictional considerations
Because the petitioner is a New York resident, parties should consider less burdensome discovery methods (e.g., remote deposition or local deposition in New York) consistent with post-judgment discovery rules if execution-related discovery is appropriate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appeals court granted certiorari and quashed the trial court’s orders that compelled a post-judgment deposition, concluding the trial court lacked authority to order that discovery in the case in chief after final judgment.
Who is affected by this decision?: The petitioner, who faced a deposition after a final default judgment, benefits because the deposition order was vacated; the respondent cannot force that in-person deposition as ordered.
What happens next in the lower court?: The trial court’s February discovery and scheduling orders are nullified; if the respondent seeks post-judgment discovery it must rely on proper execution-related rules or other applicable exceptions.
Can the respondent still get discovery?: Possibly, but only if it fits within limited post-judgment exceptions (for execution or preservation) or the trial court properly invokes a rule authorizing post-judgment discovery; reopening the judgment to obtain pre-judgment discovery is not allowed.
Can this decision be appealed further?: This is an appellate decision granting certiorari by the district court; a motion for rehearing may be filed timely in the district court, and further review could be sought to the Florida Supreme Court in appropriate circumstances.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed April 29, 2026.
        Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.



                               No. 3D26-0348
                      Lower Tribunal No. 25-218-CA-01



                               John Afriyie,
                                  Petitioner,

                                       vs.

                               Louis Friend,
                                 Respondent.



     A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Daryl
Evan Trawick, Judge.

     John Afriyie, in proper person.

     Michael Friend, for respondent.


Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Petitioner seeks review by certiorari of the trial court’s February 6, 2026

discovery order compelling petitioner to appear for deposition, as well as the

trial court’s February 19, 2026 order scheduling petitioner’s deposition. Horne

v. School Bd. of Miami-Dade Cty., 901 So. 2d 238, 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)

(“Orders granting discovery requests have traditionally been reviewed by

certiorari because once discovery is wrongfully granted, the complaining party

is beyond relief.”).

      On January 7, 2026, the trial court entered a final default judgment

against petitioner awarding $454,166 in actual damages, as well as treble

damages. The damages were unliquidated and awarded without an

evidentiary hearing. Thereafter, at 9:07 a.m. on February 6, 2026, petitioner

filed his Notice of Appeal of that final judgment. At 10:30 a.m. that same day

on February 6, 2026, the trial court entered the Discovery Order extending

expired pre-judgment discovery by sixty days and compelling petitioner, a New

York resident, to appear in person for deposition in Miami-Dade County. On

February 19, 2026, the court entered the Scheduling Order setting the

deposition at respondent’s counsel’s office in Miami and prohibiting any

objection to the date or location.

       Once the final judgment is entered, the trial court loses the ability to

order the party against whom judgment has been entered to sit for deposition

in the case in chief and is limited to ordering discovery for purposes of

execution. Berger v. Riverwind Parking, LLP, 836 So. 2d 1073, 1075 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2003). The court further explained, “Aside from Rule 1.290(b), which is

designed to preserve testimony, and Rule 1.560 governing depositions in aid

of execution, discovery under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure is limited to

‘pending actions.’ See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b).” Id. These specific exception

are not at issue here. See also JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Llovet, 330 So.

3d 1006, 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (finding that allowing post-judgment

discovery to permit a party to reopen a final judgment to obtain discovery

regarding matters that could have been obtained through due diligence before

judgment “amounts to licensing an impermissible ‘fishing expedition[ ] in post-

judgment proceedings.’” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, upon consideration of

the petition for writ of certiorari, and the response thereto, the petition for writ

of certiorari is granted, and the trial court’s orders dated February 6, 2026 and

February 19, 2026 are quashed.

      Petition granted; orders quashed.